All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 10, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:52
December 10, 2010, Friday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 Podcast.
My friends, if we have yet to persuade you that the tax deal, as it's being called, should not happen.
Snerdley, are you convinced now?
He's begrudgingly admitting I'm right.
Earlier this week, everybody's all hot to trot.
Well, the Democrats are destroying this.
Well, the Democrats ain't Obama.
Well, we're gonna get our tax ratings.
Whoa.
Folks, we don't want any part of this, especially now.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
And the telephone number is 800 282-288-2, the email address.
Ill Rushbow at EIBNet.com.
Open line Friday.
We dispense with most of the rules on Friday.
Big one says you have to talk about something I care about, or you don't get on the air.
Today you don't have to talk about something I care about.
You can ask any question you want.
I don't care.
If you want to stick it, then stick to the issues crowd.
And ask me about football.
Feel free.
Have at it.
Again, the telephone number 800 282-2882 and the email address L Rushbow at EIB net.com.
If if you need if you don't know anything else about the tax deal, just listen to this.
Senators on opposite sides of the battle over ethanol subsidies said yesterday an extension of key ethanol tax credits appear to be part of the emerging Capitol Hill deal on the Bush era tax cuts.
Senator Ben Nelson, Democrat in Nebraska, who supports ethanol, told reporters that an extension of the credit for blending ethanol into gap gasoline is included.
Yep, I believe it'll be in there based on some discussions.
Chuck Grassley says, yep, it's gonna be in there.
Tom Harkin says, yep, it's gonna be in there.
This is Washington as we've always known it.
This is nothing more than pork.
Both senators, both sides of the aisle throwing in a subsidy here.
This is getting this is more pork spending.
This is this is not representative of anybody having heard the results of the election or not getting the point of the election.
And what's being lost in all this, this word stimulus, I have been warning people all week.
There's no stimulus in this bill that is going to work.
Others are using the term stimulus to describe the tax rates staying the same.
As we've pointed out all week, there's nothing stimulative about tax rates staying the same.
That stimulus has already occurred within the immediate years after taxes were cut back in 2001 and 2003.
There's no new stimulus that's going to come from extending.
There's no stimulus associated with a one-year 2% tax rate cut in the in the uh uh payroll tax.
There's no stimulus in the estate tax being raised from zero to 35%.
So where is the stimulus?
Why does Obama keep talking about stimulus?
Well, take a look at all the spending in this bill.
This ethanol is just the tip of the iceberg.
They're loading all kinds of spending into this bill, and that's why Obama's calling it stimulus.
He's getting effectively what he's getting here is um second stimulus bill.
In exchange for the Republicans going along with this notion of keeping tax rates the same.
Taxes ought to be cut.
As such, they are going up at the end of the day, but you take everything into account here, taxes are going up.
What with the uh tax credit continuing for people that don't even pay taxes?
Uh, the death tax going from zero to thirty-five percent.
This tax deal is becoming a Christmas tree, and they're putting all these pork deals on as ornaments and presents underneath it.
You know, one of the reasons that we're being told we gotta do this.
Well, we got this deadline coming up Russian on the end of the year.
Uh Congress leaves.
The IRS commissioner has said, oh no, you gotta do this now.
Don't wait till January gonna screw up our computer codes.
We're gonna have to rewrite everything if you do this in January, February.
Let me tell you, I've I part ways with people that say if we don't do this now, the sky will fall.
With what's happening, it's time to back off.
This is not at all what this election meant.
The Democrats are still running this show.
I I I cannot explain to you why they're having the reaction they are, right?
I um, you know, the F-bomb being dropped all over the place.
Last night you watched the Senator House, well, I'm I'm sure you didn't.
Snerdley did, and he said he had to turn it off.
He has never heard the kind of anger, hatred, and vitriol aimed at the rich as he heard aimed at them last night.
Uh people like Bernie Sanders practically foaming at the mouth, talking about how the rich are caught the rich are stealing the wealth that they have from the poor.
They are stealing your kids' wealth and your grandkids' wealth.
The rich are doing all of this.
The rich are waging war against the poor, and it's all about tax rates being extended.
Of course, I think it's a setup for something else down the pike.
I I do think that um they're they're working on a death tax.
Does the name uh Steve Schwartzman mean anything to you?
Stephen Schwartzman is a Republican.
He has uh been involved in Republican fundraising, but he founded the Blackstone Group.
The Blackstone Group is a humongous investment vehicle.
Pete Peterson, a former treasury secretary with um with uh Nixon, is part of this group, and they're huge.
He's a Republican.
Steve Schwartzman's leaving the country.
He's announced he's moving to Paris.
He says half the country's doing it right, but we're not.
It's a direct uh comment on Obama.
The move is not permanent, but he's getting out of the country next three to six months to conduct business.
It doesn't like being a target.
Carried interest is how the Blackstone group makes its money, and that's an area uh for tax increases Obama is targeting.
Carried interest, the hedge funds.
So he's getting out of the country.
He has the means, the ability, not renouncing citizenship, but he's just giving out.
He just he wants to go someplace else to conduct business.
The president of the Blackstone Group, they used to be a New York concern, is in Brazil.
I heard that, and I I I was uh heard it last night.
I had to look it up for myself.
I was a little shocked by it because I I didn't associate uh Schwartzman as uh is an activist Republican as a fundraiser, but I thought Rhino.
I thought typical New York moderate Republican, but I've never met him, I don't know.
I don't know him personally, but he's leaving the country.
And this this victory all against the rich that is mounting.
They I well, I don't I didn't hear it sturdy.
I don't know if they really want a war, but but they've you know they are waging war.
He said the rich are raging waging war against the poor, and the vehicle for them saying that is these tax rates staying the same.
They were so, I guess, uh convinced that tax rates on the rich were gonna go up, that they're having a spoiled rotten little kid reaction, but it must indicate that something else is on the way,
uh, such as a a wealth tax, a tax specifically written to attack already earned income, already taxed income, in other words, portfolio tax or uh uh uh net uh net worth tax, whatever you want to call it.
I wouldn't be surprised.
Those are the people who have the money.
It's like we talked about yesterday.
Where are they gonna go get money?
Can't go get money from a pension fund, they're underfunded.
They have to go to where the money is.
That's they have to go the real money, and that's people who've earned it, and people who have it.
Now, one thing these people can't figure out, you know, this this notion to keep taxing the wealth.
Where does where does wealth get created?
These guys, if they're not, I think Obama and these people sometimes are really so naive.
They think that no matter what they do, the golden goose is always gonna be there.
And a corporation's always gonna be a bottomless pit of money, that the rich are always gonna have a bottomless Pit of money that they can tax year in and year out, and that they're never gonna kill the golden goose when they're in the process of doing so.
Now, Bernie Sanders, the only admitted socialist in the House of Representatives, and a lot of other Democrats are just beside themselves when in fact this deal is giving them a lot of what they want or claim to want.
There's a lot of pork in it, more added each day, ethanol, just the latest.
There are no tax cuts.
Look at there is a tax cut, the 2% payroll tax cut for one year, but that's it.
There aren't any tax cuts.
The only way you can look at it as a tax cut is if you were convinced that the rates were going to go up, and now they're not going to go up.
You had it in your mind, the rich are going to pay 39.6, now they're going to get the same rate of 36.
It's a tax cut.
That's the way Washington budgeting works.
But we're on this, we're on this deadline now.
We've got to do this two-year extension of current tax rates.
And by the way, Obama says he's going to raise the upper rate come hell or high water at the end of these two years.
This is just an election year move to come back during his reelection, get his leftist base back on board by once again going after tax increases for the rich during a presidential campaign.
And he's he's poised to do just that during the course of his run for reelection.
Now there you can't say then that the keeping the tax rates the same gives any useful predictability or economic help to anybody because nothing's changing.
At first, the first of the week, people go, all right, my taxes aren't gonna go up.
All right, all right, all right.
Why should we settle for that?
We won the election, and the process of settling for that, why start adding a bunch of pork?
You'll note the Democrats did not change their leadership, and neither did we.
Neither did we, and the committee chairmanships, they're all being picked by Boehner, and they all understandably are his loyalists and so forth.
Fred Upton is gonna run the House Energy Committee, and they say he's had his come to Jesus meeting here on light bulbs.
But the thing that bothers me about that is here's a guy who has to be taught at his age, the notions of constitutional and market freedom, free market concepts.
Oh, yeah, I get it now, says the new chairman of the committee.
I I you know the the economic benefit here, if we do this deal, is going to be minimal.
But if if Republicans announced loudly and clearly that their intention is to ensure a longer-term lock-in on the rates, or even cut them, then it would help settle some of the anxiety.
But right now, there is no Republican position.
Everything we're hearing is what the Democrats think and what they want.
Where is the Republican vision?
Have you heard them say it?
Have you heard Mitch McConnell articulate the Republican vision here?
Have you heard Boehner?
Have you?
I'm asking.
What okay, what did McConnell say?
What's his what's his version?
All right, so there's there is no re have you did McConnell talk about tax cuts?
Of course not.
That's what I mean.
Where is the Republican vision here?
I mean, they won the election.
Here we're on a deadline, we got to get this done before Congress ends this year.
We got to get this done, and the deadline's coming, and Democrats are adding, Obama's adding all these pork projects, more ethanol subsidies.
That's not what the election about.
They could go a long way helping themselves, making it clear they're not gonna buy a two-year deal with a certain tax increase in 2013 for hundreds of billions of dollars, including new ethanol subsidies.
What kind of deal is this?
Okay, yeah, we'll we'll we'll take it, say the Republicans, we'll take two years of the same tax rates, and then um we'll take increasing tax rates in 2013 and the ethanol subsidies.
Yeah, what else do you want?
It's hard to break old habits, folks, especially in Washington.
Even the Republican leaders have been part of this system for decades.
False deadlines, foolish deals, they become the rule, and it need not be.
I now hope this deal fails.
I say it directly and officially.
If the deal fails, the Democrats are in control.
So it is they who will be raising taxes.
Let the tax rates go up on January 1st.
Let them go up.
Wait for our cavalry to show up and deal with this the right way.
They had two years to deal with this.
They've had the two years of Obama's presidency to deal with this.
And they haven't, on purpose.
They want the tax rates to go up.
And they're buying.
We're selling for nothing.
Really, in any great shakes that we agree to two years of the tax rates not changing?
How about permanently the tax rates not changing?
Then we'll talk to you.
Two years, and we got 13 more months of unemployment, but that you the only way you can describe that, uh, 13 we uh months is look at all the spending that is.
That's new spending.
Three years now of unemployment compensation benefits in exchange for a 35% death tax, a 2% cut in the payroll tax, and two years of tax rates on income not changing.
They had two years to deal with this.
The new Congress coming in will fix it.
If the GOP leadership will allow it.
If the economy continues in its recession, as I said, yes, what is this double dip stuff?
To have a second recession, you have to get out of the first one.
We're still in the first one.
If we if if this recession continues, it's because of Obama's anti-capitalist policies and the Democratic Congress's inability to deal with the budget and tax rates.
Put it off on them.
Why why should we bail them out?
This is their mess.
Now we sign on to the mess continuing at the end of the day, we get credit for the mess.
And I say, where's the Republican vision on this?
Where's the Republican vision on taxes?
Is this it's status quo and tax rates, more spending?
Where's their proposal for a flare tax, a fair tax, a flat tax?
Where's their proposal for tax cuts?
Obama's got a plan out there.
They floated all of a sudden, lower tax rates immensely and get rid of all deductions.
Who is it that has control of taxes right now?
Who is it that has the perception that they are with all the ideas on taxes?
It's the Democrats.
This is not what this election was about.
So I just I just watched a guy on Fox.
He's talking to Michelle Bachman, and he said, keeping these tax rates the same, that's that's it, that's it, that's a that's a that's a tax cut, right?
And she was kind of befuddled, she's trying to make a different point.
He jumps in there, it's a tax cut, right?
It's got to be paid for, right?
No!
Gee, whiz, there's nothing's changing.
We we we gotta get this done.
Notice the timeline on it.
We've got to get this done before the Republicans come in and have control of the House in January.
That's that's what everybody's saying here.
We got to get this done before the cavalry arrives.
And I'm not so sure, I might be a heretic for saying this, but I'm not so sure the current House leadership is all for that.
Because coming in in January with a deal not done and going for something better, tax cuts and so forth, um, that may be more than they want to start chewing here early on in the new Congress.
I'm just guessing.
But why, if you're in the House leadership, why in the world would you want to do this now instead of waiting for when you control the joint?
When you control it by a huge margin.
Why would you want to do this?
But Mether Limbaugh, Mithra Limbaugh, your third mother do this because they see the Democrat Party detraining itself, and so do we out here in the new Catharine?
The Democrat Party is not destroying itself.
The Democrat Party, we're learning what they stand for.
We still, I've asked the question can anybody tell me.
Where's the Republican vision in all this?
And somebody tell me what the Republican core values are in all this.
Have you heard anybody express to the voters, the Republican side, here's what we're trying to do with this deal.
Here's where here's where our core values are represented in this deal.
And we got the drive bys asking Obama, what are your core values?
Where are you going to go to the Met?
The Democrats in the House throwing the F bombs around some of these people, we got some audio sound bites that are hilarious to listen to.
I mean, these guys are literally going insane because they think they're being sold out.
And based on the way they're getting their ethanol subsidies, they're getting new spending on unemployment.
Uh no taxes are being cut.
It's hard to figure out why these guys are so livid, really.
Open line Friday, Rush Limbaugh, cutting edge societal evolution.
Fox News is reporting.
The White House says Obama will not go on vacation until the nuclear treaty is ratified.
So now he's holding his vacation hostage.
It's holding everything hostage.
He's clearly capable of going on vacation if the tax deal isn't fixed, but he will not go on vacation until he gets the start deal done.
Well, that's just that's inspiring.
Now, folks, Charles Crowdhammer has a column on this deal today on the tax deal.
And it essentially says many of the things that we've been pointing out here all week about this deal regarding whether or not this is a stimulus.
How Obama keeps calling it a stimulus.
We've been asking the question of where is the stimulus in this bill...
There isn't any.
There's no stimulus in keeping tax rates the same.
But looked at from Obama's perspective, what does he consider stimulus?
Spending.
The porculus bill, 787, 800 billion dollars, that was stimulus.
Never mind that it hasn't worked.
Well, this thing has a lot of new spending in it.
Now they're adding ethanol subsidies, and who knows what else is being tacked on that we don't know about.
We've got unemployment extension for 13 months.
Now we know for an absolute fact that unemployment has cost $320 billion over the last three years.
Even our news media had to report that.
It's not some fantasy number.
Like how much extending the tax rate's gonna cost, which is again nothing.
Extending the tax rate's gonna cost nobody anything.
Well, actually, that's not true.
Extending the tax rate is not gonna fix business, it's gonna lead to more unemployment, and so will the continuation and expansion of unemployment benefits.
We're gonna there's gonna be more spending there because more people are gonna stay out of work.
Well, he's gonna pay them too.
That's the normal human reaction.
So there's nothing stimulative here in the in the way you and I think stimulus.
Now, Crowdhammer's piece, a lot of people raving about it.
Let me read to you the first paragraph.
Obama won the great tax cut showdown of 2010, and House Democrats don't have a clue that he did.
In the deals struck this week, the president negotiated the biggest stimulus in American history, larger than $814 billion of the two 2009 stimulus package.
It'll pump a trillion borrowed Chinese dollars into the U.S. economy over the next two years, which just happened to be the two years of the run up to the next presidential election.
This is a defeat.
So he calls this the biggest stimulus in American history.
Let me show you how this leads to confusion.
Jonah Goldberg, who we love here at the EIB Network, great, great book on uh liberal fascism.
Jonah Goldberg has a post at the corner talking about Krauthammer's piece.
He says, I take a back seat to no man in my admiration for Charles Krauthammer, but could someone around here take a look at his math?
Because I'm a little confused.
For instance, White House and GOP talking points notwithstanding, keeping tax rates where they are is not a stimulus.
He's right about that.
It might have a stimulating effect by reducing uncertainty.
Indeed, I think that's the case.
I disagree there.
I don't think that two years is gonna take away any uncertainty because Obama is promising to jack him back up in two years.
He's made that something he sounds like he'll fall on the sword for.
So there is no there's no stimulus here.
Business is not going to say, well, okay, we start making some plans at least for two years because then the tax rates are going to go back up.
Obama's promising to do that is not going to create any kind of uh uncertainty or end any kind of uncertainty.
But anyway, uh Goldberg says, how does maintaining the status quo and raising the estate tax from its current level pump new money into the economy?
He's right, it doesn't.
Hang with me on this.
Also, I understand that for deficit accounting, many people buy into the idea that tax cuts are indistinguishable from spending increases, but that seems like a separate argument from whether or not this deal provides a second even bigger stimulus.
Obviously, some things in the tax deal are stimulative, like the payroll tax cut, uh, which I think should have been split between the employees and employer, but I just like to see a breakout of how Charles gets to one trillion dollars in new stimulus spending.
You see, the the confusion here is with Crowdhammer calling it a stimulus, muddles his point.
And Goldberg illustrates this.
Well, uh what I think Crowdhammer means is stimulus in the sense that Obama means stimulus, spending.
As Goldberg reads the column, he thinks the stimulus is actual economic activity stimulus, which there is none in this.
That's really Crowdhammer's point.
That this is just more the same for Obama that's already failed.
And the and the part in it that looks attractive to Republicans is tax rates are not going to go up.
Now we move to the morning bell at the Heritage Foundation.
On Wednesday, and the and the the headline to their piece here is there is no tax deal.
On Wednesday, Vice President Bight Me reportedly told House Democrats a tax deal cut with Republicans was taken or leave it.
Couldn't be changed.
But by last night, after fierce opposition from his leftist base, President Obama was singing a different tune.
He told NPR, my sense is there are going to be discussions between both House and Senate leadership about all the final elements of the package.
Keep in mind, we didn't actually write a bill.
Yeah.
They didn't actually write a bill.
They didn't have a health care bill for who knows how long.
Last time we had one of these emergence, we got to do this before Congress leaves.
We got to do this before the end of the year.
That's how we got.
That's how we got the end of the McCain presidency or his campaign.
That's how we got all there.
It comes off his campaign to deal with the sp with the economic disaster, and there goes Obama on his way to victory.
Now, Harry Reid has submitted a bill, and it is clear that negotiations are still very much open for the left.
Political reports that in order to buy the votes of Senators Maria Cantwell and Barbara Boxer, Reed added cash subsidies for wind and solar corporations that were original parts of Obama's first failed stimulus that he didn't get.
So in a deal that is supposedly about tax cuts for the rich, we have added ethanol subsidies to please Harkin and Charles Grassley.
And now, in order to get the votes of Maria Cantwell of Washington Barber Boxer, California, we have added cash payments for wind and solar corporations that were originally part of Obama's first failed stimulus.
And then Harkin, Democrat Iowa was also able to trade his vote for more ethanol subsidies.
That's how they got his vote.
Other sweeteners added to buy leftist Senate votes, includes subsidies for energy efficient appliances and mass transit benefits For employees, and it only gets worse.
Yesterday, House Democrats voted to oppose the Obama tax deal.
Pelosi told Politico in the caucus today, House Democrats supported a resolution to reject the Senate Republican tax provisions as currently written.
We will continue discussions with the President and our Democrat-Republican colleagues days ahead to improve the proposal before it comes to the House floor for a vote.
And by improve the proposal, what she means is higher taxes and higher spending.
They're leaving power.
They're taking the occasion of this last piece of legislation and their budget resolution, by the way, these two pieces of legislation to pack as much of their spending agenda as they can before the Republican cavalry arrives.
And going right along with them is the Republican leadership.
Sorry to have to say it.
But right along with them is the Republican leadership.
Ethanol subsidies.
Wind and uh solar corporation cash payments.
In exchange for tax rates staying the same for two years during an election campaign Obama premises to raise them back up.
There probably isn't a trillion dollars of new spending, like Crowdhammer says, the spending involved of unemployment benefits.
Um they are, they would calculate as cost to the government the two percent tax rate.
They would also include cost to the government the fact that tax increases on income are not happening.
That's how you get to the trillion dollar figure.
You know, remember the Democrats are saying, many economists have noted that uh keeping the income tax rates the same will cost the government $700 billion.
The only way you can say that is if you were convinced that you were going to get the rates going up.
That's the only way you can say that it's gonna cost the government.
It's a typical baseline budgeting.
It the the money, the rates have never gone up yet.
It was only a possibility.
They went ahead and counted on it.
Now all of a sudden they're not gonna do anything.
Claims are getting they're getting uh uh governments getting short chain seven hundred billion dollars.
But that's how you get to all these things that add up to a trillion dollars and in in in spending or government costs or what have you.
While Obama's sitting around calling it a stimulus.
And you've got to keep in mind what an Obama stimulus is.
It's nothing more than Keynesian economics.
It's more and more spending.
Now, the deal originally cut by Republicans had some good economic policy in it, but it also had a lot of harmful provisions.
The temporary two-year nature of the arrangement did not provide long-term certainty that businesses need to make long-term investment plans that create substantial economic growth and jobs.
Allowing the death tax to return even at a lower rate did not give small business the relief that a permanent repeal would provide.
And finally, the original deal provided a costly $57 billion, 13-month extension of unemployment benefits that wasn't paid for.
This extraneous spending should have been stripped out of what should have been a clean tax bill.
Instead, the left is only adding more spending and subsidies into it.
This fall, Obama campaigned around the country promising to raise taxes on America's job creators.
By contrast, conservatives across the country campaigned on promises not to allow the left to raise taxes on anybody on January 1st and to get a handle on spending.
The American people chose the conservative position in what even Obama himself described as a shellacking at the polls.
The tax bill introduced by Reid is not what conservatives promised that they would fight for during the elections.
And the legislation will only get worse as more and more liberal votes are bought off with more and more deficit spending.
as the Democrats try to get everything they can before they lose control of the House.
Now, why should we go along with that?
Why should we make all these deals when we don't run the show?
How can this be a stimulus when public sector unions are getting bailed out?
That's part of this as well.
The mass transit unions.
Taxes ought not be raised on the American people.
Congress and the president would do well, the American people to jettison all this other side stuff and focus first and foremost on preventing tax increases.
If it were just a bill to preserve the tax rates for two years, that'd be that'd be okay.
But with what that's going to cost, and if it happens with with with Republican participation, then you have to ask yourself what was the point of the election.
Be right back, folks.
Welcome back.
It's open line Friday.
I am L. Rushbow.
And let's go to the audio sounds.
I want to start with number four.
Remember uh yesterday I made a point that there's no economic stimulus tied to the extension of these tax rates.
I pointed out that Obama can say after two years, hey, we did supply side.
And it didn't work.
We tried Reaganomics.
We tried to give the rich a tax break, and we had the tax rates reduction, and we had all this and it didn't work.
Tax cuts don't work, and he can forever bury the whole notion of supply side working in two years.
And I said this is part of the strategy here.
We have an audio montage of Democrats making this point.
What we've bought into is we're going to accept the Bush-era economic formula, the trickle-down formula.
Tax cuts for the rich trickle down.
It doesn't work.
The classic supply side idea.
He's embracing supply side economics.
And you're so of souls.
You really believe that if you give tax cuts to the top, the benefits trickle down, and everybody is better off.
If you believe in supply side trickle-down economics, hey, this is your thing.
See?
See, do I know these people or do I know these people?
They're already setting it.
And this is not supply side, because nothing's being cut.
Not one income tax rate is being reduced.
There is not one income tax rate reduction in this bill.
There is no supply side here, folks.
But that's what they're calling it.
And they know it won't work.
I'm here to tell you now that there is no economic stimulus in keeping these tax rates the same.
The only thing there is is less harm committed.
If tax rates went up, well, you'd you'd destroy even more business, more business planning, you would take more capital out of the hands of people, there would be less economic activity in the private sector, unemployment would go up, and economic activity would decline.
That's the benefit of holding the tax rates the same.
But there is no economic stimulus by keeping them the same.
But you can see here what's being set up.
And the drive-by is not going to correct these people on this.
Nobody will.
And I don't hear a Republican standing up and saying, no, no, no, these guys are lying to you.
I don't hear a Republican standing up and...
And correcting all this.
As usual, uh, ladies and gentlemen, is left to I. Which I have been doing all week.
As you know, profanity, anger, spill over in a House Democrat caucus meeting.
Here's Howard Feynman last night on countdown talking about it.
There was the one guy out there.
If the president, if the president, all these people are Democrats were saying this.
It was pretty startling.
There was Sotovache, apparently, you know, not too loud, and F the president.
There was a no F and way.
There was a he F'd it up.
There was a lot of anger.
And frankly, the president's appearance before this same group of people yesterday, when he tried to explain his side of things didn't help.
As a matter of fact, it just made things worse.
They lost the election in many cases because they championed the previous position the president took.
Now they're being asked to abandon it.
They're angry.
They feel ignored, which they were.
Uh then there's a part of me that says, I ought to shut up.
Because these people do not know how good they've got it here.
They do not know how good for them this dee do think that this is a supply side deal that's on the table.
They really do think that tax cuts for the rich are happening here, and they're not.
In any way, shape, manner, or form.
Now, Sturdley, I don't know where Krauthammer gets this one trillion dollar number.
I've been trying to figure it out, but I don't I don't see it.
Um but the Democrats are putting the number out, and somehow he's he's got I mean, I've tried to add it up.
You got you got these earmarks, and you've got you got the uh like the ethanol subsidies and that stuff attached here, and you've got the unemployment spending.
But I don't know where you've got a trillion dollar.
The only way you can say is if somehow you say keeping tax rates the same is costing the government some money.
And that's even convoluted.
But we'll see.
▲
Export Selection